Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 1477,1477 |
| Citation | 392 S.E.2d 472,301 S.C. 440 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Andrea Michelle JACKSON, Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., Respondent. . Heard |
M. Terry Haselden of Faucette Law Firm, Spartanburg, for appellant.
H. Spencer King of King & Hray, Spartanburg, for respondent.
This is an action in equity for reformation of automobile liability insurance contracts. Andrea Michelle Jackson seeks to include underinsured motorist coverage in her written contracts of insurance with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company as a remedy for State Farm's alleged failure to comply with Section 38-77-160, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976, as amended. This statute requires automobile insurance carriers to offer their insureds optional underinsured motorist coverage up to the limits of liability coverage. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Wannamaker, 291 S.C. 518, 354 S.E.2d 555 (1987). The trial court denied reformation. Jackson appeals. We reverse and remand.
Jackson received extensive injuries when the car she was driving was hit by another car. The at fault driver tendered $25,000 in settlement to Jackson. Jackson then made a claim for underinsured motorist coverage under her automobile insurance policies with State Farm. State Farm denied Jackson's claim on the ground that Jackson rejected its offers of underinsured motorist coverage. This suit followed.
Jackson asserts the trial court erred in finding State Farm made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage on Jackson's 1971 Datsun. A State Farm agent testified his employee made an offer of underinsured motorist coverage to Jackson's husband. The agent was not present at the time the offer was made. He stated he had "a good idea what she told [Jackson's husband]." The employee did not testify to the content of her offer or that she had made any offer at all. State Farm contends the agent's testimony and a rejection form signed by Jackson's husband establish it made a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage.
The agent's testimony is not based on personal knowledge and is, therefore, incompetent to establish the content of his employee's alleged offer. See State v. Hollingsworth, 78 N.C.App. 578, 337 S.E.2d 674 (1985) (). The only competent evidence regarding this alleged oral offer is from Jackson's husband who testified the employee asked him to sign the rejection form without explaining the optional coverage.
In order for the rejection form to constitute a meaningful offer of underinsured motorist coverage, it must: (1) give notification of the offer in a commercially reasonable manner; (2) specify the limits of optional coverage and not merely offer additional coverage in general terms; (3) intelligibly advise the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holt v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Civ. A. No. 2:94-1418-18.
...(S.C.Ct. App.1993) American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Howard, ___ S.C. ___, 431 S.E.2d 604 (S.C.Ct.App. 1993); Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 301 S.C. 440, 392 S.E.2d 472 (Ct. App.1990), aff'd as modified, 303 S.C. 321, 400 S.E.2d 492 (1991); Dewart v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 296......
-
Ackerman v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...that a meaningful offer of optional coverage had been made to the insured is placed on the insurer. Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 301 S.C. 440, 392 S.E.2d 472 (Ct.App.1990), aff'd as modified, 303 S.C. 321, 400 S.E.2d 492 (1991). The insurer must satisfy all four prongs of the ......
-
Butler v. Unisun Ins. Co.
...has the legal effect of no offer at all." Id. at 57, 389 S.E.2d at 659. The Court of Appeals, in Jackson v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 301 S.C. 440, 392 S.E.2d 472 (Ct.App.1990), aff'd as modified, 303 S.C. 321, 400 S.E.2d 492 (1991), held that the insurance company had failed to demon......
-
American Sec. Ins. Co. v. Howard, 1915
...coverage in dollar amounts. If it fails to do so, it does not constitute a meaningful offer. Jackson v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 301 S.C. 440, 392 S.E.2d 472 (Ct.App.1990), aff'd as modified, 303 S.C. 321, 400 S.E.2d 492 Fourth, the form does not provide the insured with ......